Friday, July 31, 2009

Scott Berkun has some amazing posts about managing Rockstars, leading the "smartest guys" and basically working with awesome teammates without pissing them off.

And sometimes the TEAM comes before the Rockstar.

Here's Scott's Teams and Stars essay on the subject and a short excerpt.<p style="padding-left: 30px;">It’s hard to understand good teams until you’ve been on both good and bad ones. You can often find frustrated people on good teams and happy people on bad teams: they don’t have enough perspective to see where they are for what it is. Some stars, people of high talent, are poor judges of teams because they’re tempted by the desire to stand out rather than the desire to succeed. Despite this, a common managerial temptation is to hire big talents, challenging the balance of needs for a successful team.</p>

I once was part of the Best Team in the World. And since then I know that at least two of my previous teammates and I have struggled to regain some perspective on our TEAM work.

Once you have been part of an Agile team it is hard, maybe impossible, to go back to a dysfunctional team. In the Lencioni's Five Dysfunctions of a Team the core foundation for TEAMing is TRUST. I assert that this issue is the same in social media, or collaborative communities online, where we must find tools and take risks to establish the trust between ourselves and our potential teammates. When the TRUST is threatened the entire TEAM is threatened.

Here is a graphic of Lencioni's hierarchy.

It's only through TRUST is the team willing to have CONFLICT. And without the ability to disagree the TEAM cannot work through difficult tasks.

Scott Berkun has some amazing posts about managing Rockstars, leading the "smartest guys" and basically working with awesome teammates without pissing them off.

And sometimes the TEAM comes before the Rockstar.

Here's Scott's Teams and Stars essay on the subject and a short excerpt.<p style="padding-left: 30px;">It’s hard to understand good teams until you’ve been on both good and bad ones. You can often find frustrated people on good teams and happy people on bad teams: they don’t have enough perspective to see where they are for what it is. Some stars, people of high talent, are poor judges of teams because they’re tempted by the desire to stand out rather than the desire to succeed. Despite this, a common managerial temptation is to hire big talents, challenging the balance of needs for a successful team.</p>

I once was part of the Best Team in the World. And since then I know that at least two of my previous teammates and I have struggled to regain some perspective on our TEAM work.

Once you have been part of an Agile team it is hard, maybe impossible, to go back to a dysfunctional team. In the Lencioni's Five Dysfunctions of a Team the core foundation for TEAMing is TRUST. I assert that this issue is the same in social media, or collaborative communities online, where we must find tools and take risks to establish the trust between ourselves and our potential teammates. When the TRUST is threatened the entire TEAM is threatened.

Here is a graphic of Lencioni's hierarchy.

It's only through TRUST is the team willing to have CONFLICT. And without the ability to disagree the TEAM cannot work through difficult tasks.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

As the "recovery" begins the long task of pulling us up by our consumer-driven bootstraps, it is easy to see how businesses are taking fewer risks and hiring fewer full-timers, opting instead to hire consultants. And within many companies that distinction can make a world of difference.

I recall a meeting a while back when my team was meeting with the VP of our division for the first time. The VP was very excited by what our team was doing, and during the discussion I too became enthusiastic and quick to respond to the VP's ideas and questions.

After the meeting adjourned I stayed back and chatted with my mentor/manager.

"Was I too much?" I wondered, knowing that I had reached for the sparkle with the VP.

Later in our 1 x 1 my mentor talked about the "consultant role" as something that I needed to out grow.

"We all know you are smart. We hired you because you are smart. But sometimes you need to listen to the question the VP, or executive, asks and answer just that question?"

More recently I have had some "consultant" moments that have caused me to reflect on what I could have done differently to "answer just that question."

The first one was an informal "job interview" with the CEO that was arranged by a friend and champion within the company who was inspired to have me join the team.

The hour flew by with the two of us jumping across many topics. At one point I used my computer to show this person some examples of the work I had done and was doing with WordPress and Google Analytics. We ended with an enthusiastic call to "have you back" to further the discussions.

Then something happened. This person rushed around the office looking for one of his senior people that he wanted me to meet before I left. After about 5 minutes the CEO came to the front desk and said the person was not available and would be at least another 15 minutes on the phone if I wanted to wait. Joining in the excitement and confident in the "have you back" talk I said that I would prefer to meet with this person when I returned.

SNAP! That was it. Something about my desire to do something else, rather than sit and wait had sullied the deal. In a phone conversation several weeks later the CEO lectured me on "listening" better. Rather than what I had felt was a collaborative discussion, the CEO now framed our meeting as a job interview and was schooling me on being a better listener.

A mutual friend later said, "Perhaps they didn't like not being the smartest guy in the room."

In a more recent example, a COO brought me in on a job opportunity and grilled me for over 3 hours. By the end of the 2nd interview we were white-boarding the organizational structure of the marketing side of the business. I thought things had gone swimmingly and was told they were going to do some due diligence before making any moves.

A couple days later the COO sent me an email about "setting up more interviews this week and next week" to insure that the company was confident in making such a big move, in hiring someone like myself. The position was going to require that the COO give up some of his control in order to make a place for a Creative Director or Marketing Director as we had outlined TWO rather than ONE position on the whiteboard.

I immediately fired back an email requesting we jump into the role immediately and "test drive" my creative side while solving some of the urgent design issues facing the company. My rate and the company's penchant for consultants made the offer too good to refuse. I started the next day and jumped headlong into the details of a creative project.

Over the course of the next few weeks I scored some major victories. Even the COO said, "You solved a problem a lot of designers had failed on."

But as a consultant I also quickly reached my limit with some of the changes that needed to happen to make the Creative Director position a successful one. The current "designer" had been hired and was being somewhat protected by the COO. And while I was being told to manage this person the COO continued to give direction and projects outside of our relationship.

When I called the COO on the issue, he agreed with me, but I could see I had not won any points. In fact, many of my tasks continued to be dependent on meeting with the COO, and often I was put in COO-watch mode, literally waiting for this person to get out of meetings. A crisis point came when I was asked to wait until 6pm to meet. And it was 6:30 when the door opened signaling the arrival of the COO.

Having kids and a baby sitter who turned into a pumpkin at 7, I was somewhat frustrated with the hurry-up-crunch-time-and-then-wait-on-me mode. I let my consultant mode slip, just for a second and allowed my frustration to show. That this person's significant other is a full-time parent, and that no other employee in our group had kids, put me at somewhat of a disadvantage to this type of wait-for-me management.

That could have very well have been the SNAP with this position as well. While my contract lasted beyond the initial 3 weeks, when I returned after a week off I got an email from the COO that said "I have decided to go another direction."

So again, perhaps I had run into the smartest guy in the room. And this time I had not played fully to their strengths and allowed them the "leadership" they needed to feel comfortable with me as an employee rather than a consultant. So their job opening is back on the web, in "another direction" that sounds a lot like the direction I was brought in on. Hopefully the COO will find someone a bit more hungry, a bit more compliant, a bit less familied.

Anyway the miss was unfortunate. The self-expressed need for the COO to "confidently relinquish this responsibility" had not been fulfilled. As a consultant I did not have the base to stand on when the issue of the designer's performance and workload came up. As a full-time employee the COO would've had to answer to his own call to "relinquish" control and perhaps he was just not ready to admit that someone else might be at least as smart as he was.

As the "recovery" begins the long task of pulling us up by our consumer-driven bootstraps, it is easy to see how businesses are taking fewer risks and hiring fewer full-timers, opting instead to hire consultants. And within many companies that distinction can make a world of difference.

I recall a meeting a while back when my team was meeting with the VP of our division for the first time. The VP was very excited by what our team was doing, and during the discussion I too became enthusiastic and quick to respond to the VP's ideas and questions.

After the meeting adjourned I stayed back and chatted with my mentor/manager.

"Was I too much?" I wondered, knowing that I had reached for the sparkle with the VP.

Later in our 1 x 1 my mentor talked about the "consultant role" as something that I needed to out grow.

"We all know you are smart. We hired you because you are smart. But sometimes you need to listen to the question the VP, or executive, asks and answer just that question?"

More recently I have had some "consultant" moments that have caused me to reflect on what I could have done differently to "answer just that question."

The first one was an informal "job interview" with the CEO that was arranged by a friend and champion within the company who was inspired to have me join the team.

The hour flew by with the two of us jumping across many topics. At one point I used my computer to show this person some examples of the work I had done and was doing with WordPress and Google Analytics. We ended with an enthusiastic call to "have you back" to further the discussions.

Then something happened. This person rushed around the office looking for one of his senior people that he wanted me to meet before I left. After about 5 minutes the CEO came to the front desk and said the person was not available and would be at least another 15 minutes on the phone if I wanted to wait. Joining in the excitement and confident in the "have you back" talk I said that I would prefer to meet with this person when I returned.

SNAP! That was it. Something about my desire to do something else, rather than sit and wait had sullied the deal. In a phone conversation several weeks later the CEO lectured me on "listening" better. Rather than what I had felt was a collaborative discussion, the CEO now framed our meeting as a job interview and was schooling me on being a better listener.

A mutual friend later said, "Perhaps they didn't like not being the smartest guy in the room."

In a more recent example, a COO brought me in on a job opportunity and grilled me for over 3 hours. By the end of the 2nd interview we were white-boarding the organizational structure of the marketing side of the business. I thought things had gone swimmingly and was told they were going to do some due diligence before making any moves.

A couple days later the COO sent me an email about "setting up more interviews this week and next week" to insure that the company was confident in making such a big move, in hiring someone like myself. The position was going to require that the COO give up some of his control in order to make a place for a Creative Director or Marketing Director as we had outlined TWO rather than ONE position on the whiteboard.

I immediately fired back an email requesting we jump into the role immediately and "test drive" my creative side while solving some of the urgent design issues facing the company. My rate and the company's penchant for consultants made the offer too good to refuse. I started the next day and jumped headlong into the details of a creative project.

Over the course of the next few weeks I scored some major victories. Even the COO said, "You solved a problem a lot of designers had failed on."

But as a consultant I also quickly reached my limit with some of the changes that needed to happen to make the Creative Director position a successful one. The current "designer" had been hired and was being somewhat protected by the COO. And while I was being told to manage this person the COO continued to give direction and projects outside of our relationship.

When I called the COO on the issue, he agreed with me, but I could see I had not won any points. In fact, many of my tasks continued to be dependent on meeting with the COO, and often I was put in COO-watch mode, literally waiting for this person to get out of meetings. A crisis point came when I was asked to wait until 6pm to meet. And it was 6:30 when the door opened signaling the arrival of the COO.

Having kids and a baby sitter who turned into a pumpkin at 7, I was somewhat frustrated with the hurry-up-crunch-time-and-then-wait-on-me mode. I let my consultant mode slip, just for a second and allowed my frustration to show. That this person's significant other is a full-time parent, and that no other employee in our group had kids, put me at somewhat of a disadvantage to this type of wait-for-me management.

That could have very well have been the SNAP with this position as well. While my contract lasted beyond the initial 3 weeks, when I returned after a week off I got an email from the COO that said "I have decided to go another direction."

So again, perhaps I had run into the smartest guy in the room. And this time I had not played fully to their strengths and allowed them the "leadership" they needed to feel comfortable with me as an employee rather than a consultant. So their job opening is back on the web, in "another direction" that sounds a lot like the direction I was brought in on. Hopefully the COO will find someone a bit more hungry, a bit more compliant, a bit less familied.

Anyway the miss was unfortunate. The self-expressed need for the COO to "confidently relinquish this responsibility" had not been fulfilled. As a consultant I did not have the base to stand on when the issue of the designer's performance and workload came up. As a full-time employee the COO would've had to answer to his own call to "relinquish" control and perhaps he was just not ready to admit that someone else might be at least as smart as he was.

Well I agree with all but two of your selections. And here is how I differ:

On the Road, Kerouac. While not his best work, this book set the scene perfectly. After studying Kerouac for a long time, I have come back to On the Road (an awesome version that has reverted back to the original scroll seems to breathe some of the life back into the journey.) and am surprised by the heart and honesty Kerouac revealed. The story is more than Jack and his buddy. It's about Jack and himself, Jack and his Mama, Jack and his depression. While I like Dharma Bums and Desolation Angels better, On the Road is quite a read.

100 Years of Solitude, Marquez. I have to think your bored assessment has more to do with you than the writing in 100 Years. Yes it meanders, but that is the case with many a whimsical tale of enchantment, love, betrayal and excess. Some of the scenes in 100 Years are completely transportive, reading them once, I was never the same after reading this book. Blending "magical realism" and the mundane Marquez takes us to places unknown and dark. As you say, you come to a book with what you yourself are carrying, and if you missed 100 Years the first time, perhaps try again later. The rewards in this book are vast. Having started here, I have read almost all of Marquez's books over time. And this one is still the masterpiece!

Well I agree with all but two of your selections. And here is how I differ:

On the Road, Kerouac. While not his best work, this book set the scene perfectly. After studying Kerouac for a long time, I have come back to On the Road (an awesome version that has reverted back to the original scroll seems to breathe some of the life back into the journey.) and am surprised by the heart and honesty Kerouac revealed. The story is more than Jack and his buddy. It's about Jack and himself, Jack and his Mama, Jack and his depression. While I like Dharma Bums and Desolation Angels better, On the Road is quite a read.

100 Years of Solitude, Marquez. I have to think your bored assessment has more to do with you than the writing in 100 Years. Yes it meanders, but that is the case with many a whimsical tale of enchantment, love, betrayal and excess. Some of the scenes in 100 Years are completely transportive, reading them once, I was never the same after reading this book. Blending "magical realism" and the mundane Marquez takes us to places unknown and dark. As you say, you come to a book with what you yourself are carrying, and if you missed 100 Years the first time, perhaps try again later. The rewards in this book are vast. Having started here, I have read almost all of Marquez's books over time. And this one is still the masterpiece!

Saturday, July 4, 2009

There is a huge contradiction between the "harsh critic" and the "gentle observer." I utilize both perspectives in my writing. In general using the "character" or "voice" that best suits the task at hand. If the task is making a critical point about a computer design or the user interface of some of our most commonly used applications (WORD, FACEBOOK, TWITTER) then I feel the striking tone is the mode for emphasizing my perspective, even if I am only preaching to the small choir and not being heard by the objects of my affection or affectation.

But when followers and readers come out and message me about being negative, well, I'm curious what is making them uncomfortable. When I railed against Twitter recently I got a Tweet back from @stop, one of Twitter's creative directors asking me "Why so harsh?" So I wanted to examine the HARSH CRITIC voice a bit further. And what a great time to do it. I just let a couple posts rip on Dell. And I had an post/counterpost on Twitter's recent changes. So let's take a look.

Something in Seth Godin's "Tribes" speaks to this point. And I paraphrase. No one ReTweets something boring. No one forwards a crappy email. And if your viewpoint is so tempered as to not spark an emotional response, well... it's just not that interesting.

So can you go to far in voicing the extreme viewpoint? Sure. But if my rants make you uncomfortable, then perhaps the discomfort is something inside you rather than my harshness. Perhaps not. I'm just sayin...

In my HARSH review of the Twitter changes I made an aside comment, Don't you guys have any design people on staff to come up with something a bit more original?" Now, I admit that's a bit abrasive. But I'm really not trying to hurt anyone. I'm trying to make a point and make it so loudly, so over-the-top as to be funny. But what I am actually saying is quite pointed but not bitter, more irritated.

What I am saying in my inflamed way in the taunt above is, "These misses are so egregious that I can't believe anyone with serious experience in UX or UI would make such blatant gaffes." And I would guess that someone of @stop's skill has enough experience that he either wasn't paying attention to this project or was forced to compromise by some higher-ups with statements like, "Well, let's just put it in both places so folks don't miss it."

I can certainly understand how these kind of misses happen. I am even sympathetic to @stop and his team's dilemma of working for a hot-topic company with large coffers and ego maniacs at the top. [See, there I go again. It's almost like I can't help but be sarcastic when I am addressing such foolishness as the executive management at Twitter. Hold on, say with me, I'm going to come back to that.]

But the BAD UI, the redundant functionality, the only-twenty-followers-per-screen issues, those irritate, because those are the misses that I chafe up against in my daily use of Twitter. I am passionate and heated about these problems with Twitter because I use Twitter. And because UX/UI people everywhere can see that some of these changes I expose or suggest are really quite simple. So I rant.

And my rants make certain people uncomfortable. And I will either apologize when I have offended or pour on more heat if I have given rise to a passionate dialogue, but I will not stand for average, mediocre or boring middle-of-the-road writing. And I won't hesitate to apologize if I make a mistake. I don't try to shout OVER my fellow orators.

But I want to inflame the devil in you too. So much of what we do in social media is suppose to be about the "dialogue." But you know what, I bet the average visitor that actually comes out of silent watching (de-lurking) is about 0.05%. What will it take for people to feel comfortable revealing their own devils?

The status updates on Facebook that get the most responses are things a recent "update" I made using a Lenny Kravitz line. "Are You Gonna Go My Way?" That was it. I was in a Kravitz mood. And boy howdy! About 10 people came out to high five me over my love of Mr. Kravitz. But post a hot potato about Dell and the audience gets a bit gun-shy. As if I am damning myself to social media ostracism.

I do have to admit the support of the Iran Crisis and the green avatars kind of snuck up on me. I was FOR and then AGAINST and now FOR the greening of Twitter Tweep pictures.

Well, I want to put up one more declaration. I am not hammering Dell because I HATE DELL. I do not RAVE on TWITTER because I HATE TWITTER. I want so much more from Dell and Twitter and NBC's coverage of Wimbledon. I have grown up working for Dell. I joined Dell in 2006 to try and make a difference in a company that was heading towards the guardrails. To me it wasn't a job, it was a passion.

So when there is backstabbing and paralyzing political silos I am going to speak my truth. When I send a private email to an individual within a company and rather than respond to me they contact my manager as if I have been a bad boy, I'm going to call foul. When a company that is slurping up millions of dollars in investments and hyper-valuations can't get some of the basic tenants of User Experience right I'm going to say, "Hey, Richie Rich, why don't you look over here for your next 'innovative' idea."

Okay, so I admit I do have a chip on my shoulder from time to time. And I try to expose that perspective as well. But it's not to be MEAN. If you misread the sarcasm, I understand that happens for me all the time as well. But don't say, "Why are you being so harsh," as a way of deflecting the criticism I have brought to your doorstep. Answer the question. If I am wrong, point it out. If I have missed the point, let me know. I am not baiting you, but I DO want you to speak up if I get something wrong. Or if MY TRUTH does not match up with what you believe to be TRUE.

If I have made you afraid, mad, happy, confused, well at least I have had an effect. The next response is up to you. But "Why so harsh," or "How 'bout a hug?" is not a response it's a facade. That's what I'm trying to tear down, the facades that keep us nodding our heads in corporate meetings when we want to say "NO!" The facades that keep us from calling the FAIL WHALE a FAILURE. And the irritation that we get when we have to click buttons and OK screens four times just to dispatch a pornographic twitter scammer who had leached onto our follower stream.

I won't sit quietly any more. I declare independence day, today on July 4, 2009. And I will speak my truth.

There is a huge contradiction between the "harsh critic" and the "gentle observer." I utilize both perspectives in my writing. In general using the "character" or "voice" that best suits the task at hand. If the task is making a critical point about a computer design or the user interface of some of our most commonly used applications (WORD, FACEBOOK, TWITTER) then I feel the striking tone is the mode for emphasizing my perspective, even if I am only preaching to the small choir and not being heard by the objects of my affection or affectation.

But when followers and readers come out and message me about being negative, well, I'm curious what is making them uncomfortable. When I railed against Twitter recently I got a Tweet back from @stop, one of Twitter's creative directors asking me "Why so harsh?" So I wanted to examine the HARSH CRITIC voice a bit further. And what a great time to do it. I just let a couple posts rip on Dell. And I had an post/counterpost on Twitter's recent changes. So let's take a look.

Something in Seth Godin's "Tribes" speaks to this point. And I paraphrase. No one ReTweets something boring. No one forwards a crappy email. And if your viewpoint is so tempered as to not spark an emotional response, well... it's just not that interesting.

So can you go to far in voicing the extreme viewpoint? Sure. But if my rants make you uncomfortable, then perhaps the discomfort is something inside you rather than my harshness. Perhaps not. I'm just sayin...

In my HARSH review of the Twitter changes I made an aside comment, Don't you guys have any design people on staff to come up with something a bit more original?" Now, I admit that's a bit abrasive. But I'm really not trying to hurt anyone. I'm trying to make a point and make it so loudly, so over-the-top as to be funny. But what I am actually saying is quite pointed but not bitter, more irritated.

What I am saying in my inflamed way in the taunt above is, "These misses are so egregious that I can't believe anyone with serious experience in UX or UI would make such blatant gaffes." And I would guess that someone of @stop's skill has enough experience that he either wasn't paying attention to this project or was forced to compromise by some higher-ups with statements like, "Well, let's just put it in both places so folks don't miss it."

I can certainly understand how these kind of misses happen. I am even sympathetic to @stop and his team's dilemma of working for a hot-topic company with large coffers and ego maniacs at the top. [See, there I go again. It's almost like I can't help but be sarcastic when I am addressing such foolishness as the executive management at Twitter. Hold on, say with me, I'm going to come back to that.]

But the BAD UI, the redundant functionality, the only-twenty-followers-per-screen issues, those irritate, because those are the misses that I chafe up against in my daily use of Twitter. I am passionate and heated about these problems with Twitter because I use Twitter. And because UX/UI people everywhere can see that some of these changes I expose or suggest are really quite simple. So I rant.

And my rants make certain people uncomfortable. And I will either apologize when I have offended or pour on more heat if I have given rise to a passionate dialogue, but I will not stand for average, mediocre or boring middle-of-the-road writing. And I won't hesitate to apologize if I make a mistake. I don't try to shout OVER my fellow orators.

But I want to inflame the devil in you too. So much of what we do in social media is suppose to be about the "dialogue." But you know what, I bet the average visitor that actually comes out of silent watching (de-lurking) is about 0.05%. What will it take for people to feel comfortable revealing their own devils?

The status updates on Facebook that get the most responses are things a recent "update" I made using a Lenny Kravitz line. "Are You Gonna Go My Way?" That was it. I was in a Kravitz mood. And boy howdy! About 10 people came out to high five me over my love of Mr. Kravitz. But post a hot potato about Dell and the audience gets a bit gun-shy. As if I am damning myself to social media ostracism.

I do have to admit the support of the Iran Crisis and the green avatars kind of snuck up on me. I was FOR and then AGAINST and now FOR the greening of Twitter Tweep pictures.

Well, I want to put up one more declaration. I am not hammering Dell because I HATE DELL. I do not RAVE on TWITTER because I HATE TWITTER. I want so much more from Dell and Twitter and NBC's coverage of Wimbledon. I have grown up working for Dell. I joined Dell in 2006 to try and make a difference in a company that was heading towards the guardrails. To me it wasn't a job, it was a passion.

So when there is backstabbing and paralyzing political silos I am going to speak my truth. When I send a private email to an individual within a company and rather than respond to me they contact my manager as if I have been a bad boy, I'm going to call foul. When a company that is slurping up millions of dollars in investments and hyper-valuations can't get some of the basic tenants of User Experience right I'm going to say, "Hey, Richie Rich, why don't you look over here for your next 'innovative' idea."

Okay, so I admit I do have a chip on my shoulder from time to time. And I try to expose that perspective as well. But it's not to be MEAN. If you misread the sarcasm, I understand that happens for me all the time as well. But don't say, "Why are you being so harsh," as a way of deflecting the criticism I have brought to your doorstep. Answer the question. If I am wrong, point it out. If I have missed the point, let me know. I am not baiting you, but I DO want you to speak up if I get something wrong. Or if MY TRUTH does not match up with what you believe to be TRUE.

If I have made you afraid, mad, happy, confused, well at least I have had an effect. The next response is up to you. But "Why so harsh," or "How 'bout a hug?" is not a response it's a facade. That's what I'm trying to tear down, the facades that keep us nodding our heads in corporate meetings when we want to say "NO!" The facades that keep us from calling the FAIL WHALE a FAILURE. And the irritation that we get when we have to click buttons and OK screens four times just to dispatch a pornographic twitter scammer who had leached onto our follower stream.

I won't sit quietly any more. I declare independence day, today on July 4, 2009. And I will speak my truth.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

A dear friend and Twitter marketer, contacted me late last night to voice concerns about my negative tone. I thought I had already had that conversation, but he probably doesn't "read me." No worries. So one of the pieces he pointed to was my recent trashing of the UX/UI changes on Twitter. I DID ping @stop and ask if he was the Creative Director responsible for the NEW TWITTER Friends and Followers pages. Here's what he said.

Okay, so perhaps I was being mean, I don't sense that was my purpose, but I do understand online sarcasm and humor can often be confused for bitterness, anger, vendetta, whateva... So here goes my ALL GOOD review... Let's see how this rolls.

+++ THE ALL GOOD REVIEW: Thank goodness Twitter has made some needed upgrades to their UX.

So Twitter's got a new pull-down action menu for dispatching some useful tasks.

Here we can see the new pull-down menu for taking action on followers and followees. With a simple click we can @, DM, Follow or Block any one. And this nifty feature is now available in the same flavor across all the "friends" or "followers" pages you visit. Even when looking at the "friends" or "followers" of other users. Nice! And convenient that you can see instantly, even without using the drop-down, that this person is "blocked" or "followed." [Oh heck, am I still following that silly old advertising agency that I used to work for. Let's see, CLICK: drop-down, PULL: Unfollow.] Nice!

So now let's look at the new and improved Followers and Friends pages.

Here is a shot of the "You Follow" page in LIST view.

So this pretty much looks like the old "You Follow" page. And conveniently the same drop-down box is available here too. [I wish we could choose the number of tweeps to view per page, cause following 5,600 tweeps using 20 tweeps per page... well that's 280 pages of goodness I have to page through to edit and cull my list. Just a thought.]

Here we can see that @stop and company have added a little contextual information with each tweep. So you can see the person's last tweet, very helpful when deciding if you want to reciprocally follow back. And again the nice BIG pull-down button. And also a handy, ADD button.

So there are just a few things missing from the new interface. I'm sure @stop and his group are already hard at work on the next iteration.

1. I would like to see a RT option here. This must have been an oversight, cause that's such a simple fix.

2. I would also really like Twitter to add a "-!" Report Abusive Account feature. Where I can fast-track pornsters and scammers to the dustbin of Twitter Hades. And in the Usability department, here's one more suggestion.

A dear friend and Twitter marketer, contacted me late last night to voice concerns about my negative tone. I thought I had already had that conversation, but he probably doesn't "read me." No worries. So one of the pieces he pointed to was my recent trashing of the UX/UI changes on Twitter. I DID ping @stop and ask if he was the Creative Director responsible for the NEW TWITTER Friends and Followers pages. Here's what he said.

Okay, so perhaps I was being mean, I don't sense that was my purpose, but I do understand online sarcasm and humor can often be confused for bitterness, anger, vendetta, whateva... So here goes my ALL GOOD review... Let's see how this rolls.

+++ THE ALL GOOD REVIEW: Thank goodness Twitter has made some needed upgrades to their UX.

So Twitter's got a new pull-down action menu for dispatching some useful tasks.

Here we can see the new pull-down menu for taking action on followers and followees. With a simple click we can @, DM, Follow or Block any one. And this nifty feature is now available in the same flavor across all the "friends" or "followers" pages you visit. Even when looking at the "friends" or "followers" of other users. Nice! And convenient that you can see instantly, even without using the drop-down, that this person is "blocked" or "followed." [Oh heck, am I still following that silly old advertising agency that I used to work for. Let's see, CLICK: drop-down, PULL: Unfollow.] Nice!

So now let's look at the new and improved Followers and Friends pages.

Here is a shot of the "You Follow" page in LIST view.

So this pretty much looks like the old "You Follow" page. And conveniently the same drop-down box is available here too. [I wish we could choose the number of tweeps to view per page, cause following 5,600 tweeps using 20 tweeps per page... well that's 280 pages of goodness I have to page through to edit and cull my list. Just a thought.]

And here's the greatly improved "Your Followers" page in EXPANDED view: Here we can see that @stop and company have added a little contextual information with each tweep. So you can see the person's last tweet, very helpful when deciding if you want to reciprocally follow back. And again the nice BIG pull-down button. And also a handy, ADD button.

So there are just a few things missing from the new interface. I'm sure @stop and his group are already hard at work on the next iteration.

1. I would like to see a RT option here. This must have been an oversight, cause that's such a simple fix.

2. I would also really like Twitter to add a "-!" Report Abusive Account feature. Where I can fast-track pornsters and scammers to the dustbin of Twitter Hades. And in the Usability department, here's one more suggestion.